The decision that Phil is taking can definitely impact Hady’s job, as acquiring competitors’ pricing and proposal inadequately will be done from his side and therefore in case if there is a check that happens he might lose his job. Moreover, the organization will also be facing a loss and a major hit on their Brand value and the image of an ethical organization. It is important to understand that although the contract was very important for MAXI Technology (MT), the normal organizational ethics were still supposed to be followed and Phil had given a strong recommendation to Hady, to obtain the pricing and proposal details of the competitors inappropriately, however it is his choice to refrain from any activity which may sound unethical and can lead to an embarrassing situation both for him and the organization.
Phil is trying to achieve the desired results through an illegitimate way by using his designation to control his subordinate in order to obtain the pricing related details for a competitor, which is unfair however there is a legal way out of it, and according to that Phil must provide his proposal and pricing to the client and should give honest try to win the bid rather than trying to gain sensitive competitor information in an illegitimate way.
The available information in this case clearly signifies that although Hady has a clear understanding and he takes all the instructions provided by Phil in a positive way however did not quite understand the last instruction which was related to obtaining the sensitive information about the competitor’s bid. There is no clarity in this case study about the fact whether Hady agrees to the proposal made by Phil and therefore we cannot comment about the same. However, the information provided in the case studies enough to understand that Phil is taking an unethical decision in order to win the tender or bid.
If we talk about the stakeholders, MAXI Technology (MT) is the primary organization which has multiple owners and stockholders who are responsible for the organization behavior and can be termed as the key stakeholders. Phil was an important position in the organization and is also Hady’s boss. Hady is a consultant with the organisation and does not have much experience however is directly involved with the issue.
Mentioned below are the possibilities having analyzed the issue:
Marty may under pressure, compel Robert to write a fall sales orders and may also use the statement that Roberts sales number lesser than the other salesman and therefore he might be the first one to lose his job or bonus if the numbers are not met. Robert has all the right to make a discrimination claim against Marty in case if anything like that happens, or else he could contact the HR manager or Marty’s immediate boss that is Frank.
The determination of greatest good was on the basis of the fact that in case if the details of the competitor related to pricing and proposal will be obtained by Hady, then there is a chance for the organization to win the contract which would benefit the entire organization, Hapy and Phil as well. The case study does not clarify whether all the team members and the leadership would agree with Phil on the decision that he wants to take. If we look from the ethical point of view, this decision as per the utilitarian theory is not right and would call for a criticism.
Hady must not illegitimately obtained the pricing and proposal related details of the competitor as it is ethically not right. It must be considered whether an ethical behavior shown from both sides and in case if there is any party which takes an action that is unethical, the other party’s right take precedence. From an ethical point of view the decision even remains the same of the roles are reversed and it is definitely not right for the competitors also to gain information about the pricing for MAXI Technology (MT). Anyone would not like to live in a world where these types of activities take place which are unethical and do not comply with the normal work guidelines. It is also important to understand that Phil’s decision to suggest Hady, to obtain the competitor proposal and pricing details may also come under legal consideration as it would come under the nondisclosure agreement and breach of integrity.
The Justice theory talks about the quality and fairness which will definitely not exist in the case when Hady would take action according to Phil’s suggestionl. His decision will neither be fair to MAXI Technology (MT) not many of the other employees of the competitor’s organization who may have worked sincerely on creating an ideal proposal. The stakeholders also may not be willing to accept this kind of a step as it can lead to the organization hampering its image on a serious note in the market. Hence from justice point of view the situation appropriately should be like, Phil provides Hady all the guidelines of how to put forward the proposal and then they should put it across to their clients in an honest and dignified manner.
The fair dealing in this case can be identified through the comparison of actual incidents with the situation, from a determination point of view, it is important to understand that as far as all the parties are getting mutual benefits than as a distributive justice the final decision on this comes to an end.
On the other hand the integrative theory is more about our creation of relationships and sorting out of issues and verbal communication channels. The relationship management perspective requires all the staff members to collaborate together and to speak to the management in order to make them understand about the process and any new relationships are adequately scanned for their previous background to know more. Hence, there is an opportunity for Hady to discuss this issue with senior management or an HR person and to find out policies related to honest bidding and should highlight such an issue so that the organization’s reputation is not at stake.
References
Becker, B., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic Human Resources Management: Where Do We Go from Here? Journal of Management Vol.32 No.6 , 898–925.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and Contradictions in Research on Human Resource Management and Performance. Human Resource Management Journal , 67–94.
Boswell, W. R. (2006). Aligning Employees with the Organization’s Strategic Objectives: Out of “Line of Sight,” out of Mind. International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol.17 No.9 , 1489–1511.
Legge, K. (2005). Human Resource Management. Rhetorics and Realities, Anniversary Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maxwell, G. A., & Watson, S. (2006). Perspectives on Line Managers in Human Resource Management: Hilton International’s UK Hotels. International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol.17 No.6 , 1152–1170.
